If this is what the speaker is implying, then the assertion that this claim is "not an argument" is logically incorrect. And if so, the response that "this is not an argument" does not actually refute any of the syllogisms' points.

Of course, this same logic can be applied to the statement "not an argument" as it is an enthymeme for the following chain of reason:

Instead, a proper response to the above argument would be to ask What is your argument? Their response should enlighten you of the syllogism that their statement is shorthand for.

Afterwards, using the above example, you can rebut one of the premises involved:

[X] is not a racist act (to disprove P1), or:

Trump did not do [X] (to disprove P2), or even:

Racism is not bad (to disprove P3)

Each of these is a valid counterargument, because it attacks a premise of the original assertion. In contrast, because "not an argument" does not attack any of the premises of the original assertion, the argument of "not an argument" is itself not an argument.

Presumes that all discussion is combative (rather than, e.g., a mutual discussion of shared/unshared beliefs)

Ignores "factual claims" that provide relevant information (which may support an argument without explicitly making one)

Is really fucking petty

Any discussion taking pretense or structure of formal debate should use appropriately constructed arguments with clear conclusions and specifically cited evidence and logical deductions. In such cases, these concerns are directly addressed by the assumptions of the format.

Stefan Molyneux, the creator of the phrase, wrote a book on logic that confuses logical validity with logical soundness (and contains numerous fallacies throughout).[3] Perhaps as a result, Molyneux mostly uses "not an argument" as a bludgeon against opposing viewpoints. As such, the above concerns might be above the level of discourse that "not an argument" usually operates in: that of insults and ad hominems.